UNITED
NATIONS, April
11 -- Back on
March 17 when
the
International
Monetary Fund
held is
biweekly
briefing,
Inner City
Press arrived
in person with
questions on
Zimbabwe,
Jamaica and, as for
months, Sri
Lanka.

But it
was not a
normal
briefing: it
started with a
paper about
the
International
Monetary
System,
leaving the
ten
journalists
present to
fight for time
to ask their
questions.
Inner City
Press got in
two questions,
see below, but
not the one
about Sri Lanka.

Now on
April 11 the
IMF has
provided an
update, that
it is nearing
agreement with
Sri Lanka's
government on
a 36 month
program, to be
further
discussed at
the upcoming Spring
Meetings in
Washington:

"A staff team
from the
International
Monetary Fund
(IMF) led by
Todd Schneider
visited
Colombo during
March 31-
April 11 to
hold the 2016
Article IV
consultation
discussions
and to discuss
the
authorities’
request for a
Fund supported
arrangement.
The mission
made
significant
progress
toward a staff
level
agreement with
the government
on an economic
program that
could be
supported by a
36-month
Extended Fund
Facility
(EFF). Program
discussions
will continue
in Washington
D.C. on the
margins of the
Spring
Meetings of
the IMF and
World Bank,
with the
objective of
concluding a
staff-level
agreement with
the
authorities,
subject to
approval by
IMF Management
and the
Executive
Board, in the
next two
weeks.

At the end of
the visit Mr.
Schneider made
the following
statement:

“Macroeconomic
performance in
2015 reflected
a mix of
positive
underlying
growth
momentum, the
impact of
domestic
policies, and
an
increasingly
difficult
external
environment.
The fiscal
deficit
expanded,
public debt
increased, and
the balance of
payments
position
deteriorated
despite an
improvement in
the terms of
trade. Real
GDP growth in
2016 is
expected to
remain around
5 percent and
inflation in
the low single
digits. Over
the medium
term, there is
potential for
growth to rise
closer to Sri
Lanka’s
estimated
potential
output level,
but prospects
will hinge on
a policy
upgrade in the
near term and
removing
bottlenecks to
trade and
investment.

Back on
March 17 in
the IMF's
small briefing
room in
Washington, a
Greek
journalist
asked about
Greece;
Ukainian TV
asked about a
quote from
Victoria
Nuland then
fought for
question time
with TASS. A
Brazilian
journalists
asked if there
will be a
program.

Inner
City Press
jumped in with
the Zimbabwe
question,
since the head
of the Central
Bank has been
saying the
country will
get a loan up
to $984
million in the
third quarter.

Not so
fast, IMF
Deputy
Spokesperson
William Murray
said. He had a
long if-asked,
which we'll
insert here
later. The
upshot is that
Zimbabwe still
owes too much
money, and
despite
support from
(some) other
states as an
IMF meeting in
Lima, the
rules are the
rules. At
least for
Zimbabwe.

Inner
City Press
also asked
Murray to
acknowledge
that the
windfall
profits made
off Argentina
by vultures
Singer and
Dart wont'
inevitably
incentivize
more predatory
behavior.
Murray said he
wasn't going
there. But the
market will
be: watch this
site.
asked
questions and
got responses
on Tunisia,
Jamaica and
Zimbabwe.

In
Jamaica, after
an extended
period of
austerity, a
new government
has been
elected, led
by the Jamaica
Labour Party's
Andrew Holness
IMF
spokesperson
Gerry Rice
said the IMF
"takes note"
of the new
government and
will hold
discussions
with it.

But
what will it
portend for
the upcoming
austerity-related
benchmarks and
reviews?

Inner City
Press asked:
"On Jamaica,
what is the
relation
between the
IMF's program
and review(s)
and the
elections and
their results?
When will the
review due
March 15 be
done?"

Rice answered:
"There’s a
question about
Jamaica,
what’s the
relationship
now between
the IMF and
Jamaica, given
the elections,
and when will
the review,
due on March
15th, be done.
You know,
clearly, we
note the
election of
Mr. Holness
and the GOP,
the election
results. We
look forward
to continuing
to support
Jamaica under
its new
leadership and
we plan to
discuss the
economic
priorities
with the new
authorities
soon. Again,
I’d note Mr.
Holness has
made clear
during his
campaign the
intent to
continue the
reform program
supported by
the IMF, so we
look forward
again to a
close policy
dialog with
the new
leadership and
geopolitical
changes that
the
authorities
and the staff
have agreed to
delay the
discussions of
the 11th
Review for
now, and I’ll
come back when
we have a date
on that.

In
Zimbabwe,
despite a
Staff
Monitored
Program,
parliamentarians
are
complaining
about the
IMF's delay,
moving toward
new elections
with no
progress with
the IMF.

Inner City
Press asked:
"On Zimbabwe,
what is the
IMF's response
to criticism
by
parliamentarians
that the
normalization
of relations
under the
Staff
Monitored
Agreement is
taking too
long and that
if it does not
speed up, the
country will
prepare for
new elections
without any
meaningful
progress with
the IMF?"

Rice answered:
" On Zimbabwe,
what’s the
IMF’s response
to criticism
from
parliamentarians
about
normalization
of our
relations, is
it taking too
long? The
status with
Zimbabwe is
that we have
what we call a
staff
monitored
program. We’ve
had that for
some time. It
helps a
country
establish a
policy record
with a view to
normalizing
relations with
creditors. We
are also
providing some
technical
assistance. We
have an
ongoing
mission and
it’s aimed at
conducting the
third and
final review
under that
SMP, that
staff
monitored
program, and
the 2016
Article IV.
As you
probably know,
Zimbabwe is
currently in
arrears to the
IMF and others
and the
strategy
entails how to
clear those
arrears that
are due to the
IMF, the World
Bank and
others. The
Zimbabwean
authorities
presented
their plans
for repaying
their arrears
during the
annual
meetings in
Lima and that
has received
support from
creditors and
development
partners. So
successful
completion of
that SMP and a
depending of
ongoing
reforms sets
the stage for
advancing the
discussions
about the
reengagement
process.
That’s where
we are on
Zimbabwe. I’m
going to leave
it there for
today. Thank
you very much
for your
cooperation
and patience
this morning.
I really
appreciate
it."

On
Tunisia, Inner
City Press
asked: "On
Tunisia, is a
new IMF line
of credit on
schedule to be
approved by
the Board on
April 22? What
did Mr
Blotevogel
when he said
“"Expected
growth for
2016 does not
correspond to
the
aspirations of
the Tunisian
people. It
will not be
strong enough
to reduce
unemployment.”
What does the
IMF recommend,
then?"

Rice directed
Inner City
Press to a
forthcoming
press release:
"There’s a
question on
Tunisia asking
about asking
about the
status of the
program with
Tunisia.
There’s an IMF
mission in
Tunisia until
today
negotiating a
new four year
Fund
arrangement to
support the
authority’s
program. And
in fact, we’re
going to be
releasing a
press release
as soon as I
finish here,
so I can refer
you to that.
It will give
the complete
update on
where we are
on that
matter."

Back on
February 11,
Inner City
Press asked
the IMF, "On
Sri Lanka,
please comment
on and provide
context for
the reported
request from
the government
for a new IMF
program."

IMF
Spokesperson
Gerry Rice,
after noting
how Inner City
Press submits
its questions
(electronically),
replied that
Sri Lankan
authorities
have expressed
an interest in
a program to
deal with
balance of
payments. He
said there
would be a
negotiating
mission in
late March or
early April.

The
embargoed
briefing began
with a
read-out of
the press
release that
there is no
competition to
Christine
Lagarde for a
second term --
similar to the
way at the UN,
there was no
competition to
Ban Ki-moon
for a second
term. Is this
any way to run
a
multilateral,
quasi
universal
international
organization?

Inner
City Press
also asked
about Romania
(“Romania on
Monday made
the last
interest
payment on the
13 billion
euro it took
from IMF in
2009” and
Dragos
Tudorache,
head of the
Chancellery of
the Prime
Minister, has
said "We don’t
plan to
conclude a new
deal with the
IMF” - please
provide an IMF
comment /
response)
and this, on
Burundi:

"On Burundi,
at the UN
Peacebuilding
meeting at the
UN yesterday
(Feb 10), the
IMF said any
new program
would depend
on relations
with the
international
community.
Please explain
this, how
relations with
the
international
community
impact an IMF
program."

Back on
January 14,
Inner City
Press
submitted a
number of
questions,
leading with
Burundi and
whether the
Nkurunziza
government's
"income" from
sending troops
to Somalia and
Central
African
Republic
should be
disclosed in
the budget.
See below.

On
February 10 in
the UN
Peacebuilding
Commission,
while the IMF
still didn't
directly
address the
sleight of
hand with the
UN's
peacekeeping
funds, it
presented a
stark picture
of Burundi's
economy. It
said GDP fell
over four
percent in
2015.

The IMF
said any new
program would
depend on
relations with
the
international
community.

The
World Bank's
Bella Bird
spoke by video
from Addis
Ababa; she
said the World
Bank still has
$270 million
of projects in
Burundi, but
said the
government is
closing down,
not reaching
out.

Burundi's
Ambassador to
the UN Albert
Shingiro,
after these
critiques,
went on and on
bragging about
blocking the
proposed
MAPROBU
peacekeeper
force in
Addis,
denouncing
NGOs he left
UNnamed and false
media reports.
He continues
to block
@InnerCityPress
on Twitter.
We'll have
more on this.

Back on
January 14,
IMF
spokesperson
Gerry Rice
read out Inner
City Press'
question then
referred to
the IMF's
March 2015
sixth review,
saying the
government had
committed to
include the
income from
peacekeeping
operations in
the budget.
Rice then said
due to
deterioration
in the
security
situation, the
seventh and
eight reviews
are not
possible and
the program is
"off track."

On
January 14 the
IMF's Rice
also noted the
US Congress
having
approved quota
reform
(answering
that he was
not aware of
any new
oversight this
might
trigger), and
said that
Managing
Director
Lagarde will
hold Greece
meetings in
Davos. Rice
declined to
answer ICP's
question on
Nigeria,
saying much
has been said
on the topic;
a Trinidad and
Tobago
question
remained
outstanding as
the embargo
time expired,
but Inner City
press was
later on
January 14
told on
Trinidad and
Tobago, the
IMF's
engagement
with the
country is one
of economic
policy advice
or what we
call
surveillance.
There is no
program nor
any talk of
that, Inner
City Press was
told.

Back on
December 5,
2015, Inner
City Press
also asked the
IMF about
Burundi (and
Zambia), and
Rice said
following as
to Burundi, audio
here:

“In terms of
the outlook in
Burundi, it's
effected by
the decline in
economic
activity there
and the .
withdrawal of
donor support.
Confidence in
the economy
has been
weakened by
the political
climate and
adverse
security
developments.
The growth
rate in
Burundi, which
we had
initially
projected 5%
in 2015, is
now estimated
at minus 4.1%
in real
terms.... In
the current
environment,
completion of
the 7th and
the 8th review
under our
program there
is not
possible and
as such,
Burundi's
program with
the IMF, which
is an ECF
arrangement,
is now off
track.”

Inner
City Press had
also asked, on
Zambia, it is
reported that
the IMF
“proposed a $1
billion
facility which
the president
had turned
down. A
sticking point
for the
president was
the insistence
by the IMF
that
government
commit to
drastic
reductions in
expenditure,
particularly
on road
construction.”
What is the
IMF's
response?

Rice said that
no program has
been
“formally”
requested, but
that the
Zambian
authorities
committed to
“internal
consultations.”
Inner City
Press had
asked about
Sri Lanka, and
the same “no
formal request
yet” answer
was given. Audio
here.
Inner
City Press
also asked
about Malawi
and, lastly,
Ghana; more on
this to
follow.

On October 29,
Inner City
Press asked
IMF
spokesperson
Rice “in
Jamaica, the
National
Democratic
Movement has
blamed the IMF
for the
country's
'health-care
system
becoming a
national
disgrace.'
What is the
IMF's
response?”

Rice
during the
IMF's
embargoed
briefing read
out this
question,
audio here,
and said he
does not
agree, that
Jamaica's
2015-16 budget
includes an
increase for
the Ministry
of Health. Audio
of full answer
here.

The IMF,
it seems,
should be more
responsive:
the Gleaner
for example
opines that
“in 2014,
Jamaica paid
$138 million
more to the
IMF than it
received from
it. We are
constantly
being told
Jamaica passed
the IMF test.
Look at the
punitive
primary
surplus
imposed on
Jamaica. At
7.5%, it is
way above what
is being asked
of any other
country in the
IMF program.
It is 4% for
Cyprus, 3% for
Ireland, 3%
for Greece, 3%
for Portugal
and a puny 1%
for Ukraine.
One has to
wonder why
Jamaica is
being treated
this way.”

Here
are two other
questions
Inner City
Press
submitted on
October 29,
still without
answer:

On Antigua
& Barbuda,
in light of
recent
comments by
IMF Mission
Chief Arnold
McIntyre, what
is the IMF's
view of and
comment on the
information in
the US FBI's
charge sheet
and indictment
of Antigua's
former
ambassador
(and former UN
PGA) John
Ashe,
particularly
with regard to
corruption in
the country?

In light of
the UN Special
Rapporteur's
report on
human rights
(non)
compliance by
the World
Bank,
presented this
week at the
UN, please
summarize how
the IMF
considers the
human rights
impacts on its
decisions.

We'll
have more on
this.

Back on
July 8 when
the
International
Monetary Fund
released
reviews and
papers about
the United
States,
complete with
support of the
Dodd Frank Act
and mentions
of anti money
laundering
protection
Inner City
Press asked
about the
proposal to
raise the
definition of
Systemically
Important
Financial
Institution
from $50
billion up to
$500 billion
and if tight
AML strictures
are to blame
for cutting
off
remittances to
Somalia.

Aditya
Narain, IMF
mission chief
for the
Financial
Sector
Assessment
Program and
deputy
director,
Monetary and
Capital
Markets
department,
told Inner
City Press
that the IMF
believes such
definition
should give
predictability,
but should be
based on risk
and not
necessarily
only asset
size.

Narain
told Inner
City Press,
"On the first
one, our
general belief
is that
supervisory
approaches
should be risk
based, and
therefore the
materiality
and
proportionality
of
institutions
should be
taken into
account for to
develop
supervisory
frameworks. At
the same time,
we also
recognize that
it’s important
to have some
clear rules,
regarding a
unit, in this
case size of
institutions,
because not
only does it
set a baseline
of
expectations,
but it also
provides a
useful
framework for
people to
anchor their
expectations
on. So that’s
why, in a
sense we would
agree that
it’s important
to make these
approaches
risk based and
therefore not
dependent on
size alone. I
should add
also, that our
only political
ideology is
financial
stability, for
the purpose of
this exercise.

But
will this be
used FOR the
Senator
Richard Shelby
draft bill?

On
remittances,
Aditya Narain
said it is an
important
question but
one that the
IMF is dealing
with in other
venues; it
apparently
wasn't raised
to the US
during this
process. Why
not?

Narain
told Inner
City Press,
"On the
regulatory
question, this
is an issue
which is being
discussed in
several forums
where the IMF
has been
participating,
and this is an
issue not just
for the US,
although it
has been most
discussed in
the context of
the US, but
the effects of
the AML on
remittances
and the
result, the
stringent
adherence to
standards has
led to a
concern more
globally that
might be
affecting the
flow of
remittances to
those
jurisdictions...
where such
remittances
and the
channels
through which
they flow are
more
important. We
have not
discussed
this... there
is work
ongoing in the
Fund,
including in
collaboration
with other
institutions
like the World
Bank... and we
expect to be
able to have
more
information on
this in a few
months time."

In the
embargoed
media
conference
call, two
questions in a
row went to
the Financial
Times, which
opined that
the IMF report
takes the side
of the
Democratic
Party. The IMF
disagreed. The
IMF said, in
writing, “As
the epicenter
of the global
financial
crisis that
began in 2008,
the United
States passed
a major law in
2010, the
Dodd-Frank
Act, to reform
its financial
system.
Officials need
to complete
the rulemaking
under the law,
while parts of
reform agenda
face
legislative
proposals to
water them
down.”